Was this the first official "cameo proof" coin?
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
On August 12, 1839 Mint Director Robert M. Patterson sent “two specimens of a half-dollar of a new impression, which I respectfully submit to you for your approbation” to Treasury Secretary Levi Woodbury. At the bottom of the letter, Patterson added a post script, **“P.S.: You will remark that one of the figures is bright and the other frosted.” **
Both coins were Seated Liberty patterns made specifically for the Secretary’s approval, and likely came from polished dies. For the Director to specifically call out “one of the figures is bright and the other frosted” implies deliberate action to create different appearances.
Could this be the first official description of a “cameo proof coin” in numismatics?
3
Comments
Were they from the same dies and metal, or could the frosting (however it was created, such as sandblasting) have been an attempt to distinguish one piece from the other?
Letters relating to the seated halves are silent on any differences.
The August 12 letter shows that the two coins were pattern pieces sent to the Secretary for his approval, although operational procedures indicate that working dies had been made in anticipation of the official OK. There is no mention of any alloy difference. Certainly nothing about different dies. A check of on-line auction archives reveals no mention of a frosted proof for 1839.
It might simply have been that the Mint was experimenting with making "master" or "specimen" coins with frosted devices. (This would have been easier than polishing the entire die - just leave the relief as-is.)
Interesting Roger.... But then my mind leads me to wonder 'What happened to that coin?'..... Probably eventually entered commerce and became lost in the shuffle... Cheers, RickO
Lots of pattern and experimental pieces were sent to Secretaries of the Treasury over the years, and we know almost nothing about their fate.
since you have examined Mint Records from many different Directors and Administrations, are more concise, accurate records kept nowadays than in the past??
Modern records usually include mention of things like etching or sandblasting relief, and the deliberate creation of frosted relief...especially after 1969. Earlier operating records are missing or silent. The 1839 letter is the first time I've found the word "frosted" used in relation to a coin. But -- there are others doing research who might have seen the term at an earlier date.
First use of the word "proof" was in 1835, describing the Cochin-China and Japan presentation sets.
It is probably the first description of the distinction between polished and frosted dies/devices, and the first usage of the word "frosted." My research of Mint records ends around 1825, and the word "proof" is not used at the Mint, in what I have found. However, "proof" is used in an engraving context back to the 1780's, in the Robert Morris papers and other sources.
Others have written that "cameo proofs" could have been made at the Mint as far back as the 1790's, but I absolutely do not believe this. Etching was first used by US engravers in the late 1790's on some copperplate, but not by Robert Scot.
Interesting thread and responses. Thanks!
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
This is the reason I believe some early proof-like (not proof) US coins appear to have a slight cameo contrast - the highest surface on the working die, the flat fields, were polished upon finishing the die, and the relief was not polished to the same degree.